View Single Post
  #10   Report Post  
Gareth Magennis
 
Posts: n/a
Default

This debate between Scientists and Objectivists is never going to be
resolved to eithers' satisfaction.


er..scientists *are* objectivists



My mistake - I meant of course Subjectivists




Scientists insist that unless things can be explained in their terms, and
only those terms that are currently known about qualify to be such terms,
then such things are either imaginary, or "magic" or some other falsity,
again according to their own defined meaning of the words "false, true,
proof etc".


Ojectivists, on the other hand, are not scientists - they just know what
they experience and don't know how to explain it in currently known
scientific terms, or they simply aren't that interested in this
intellectual
persuit.


Just becuase *they* can't explain it by 'known scientific terms', hardly
means it *can't be* explained by such terms. Often 'they' are simply
ignorant of the available plausible explanations; instead they simply
assume that whatever 'explanation' they come up with, because it
'feels' right, is the right one.




My point is that if you think that things can be explained by current
scientific knowledge, it implies that these current theories cannot
possibly be incorrect or missing vital parts. You are basing your
explanation on a severely limited knowledge base, which I believe is
fundamentally flawed logic. There could be all sorts of reasons, as yet
unknown, why current "knowledge" about listening to music is going to look
pretty archaic and silly some hundred years from now, yet the general trait
amongst scientists is to ignore this possibility and constantly say things
like "we now know that ...." so that automatically makes oposing opinions
"wrong".
Science is not about "knowing" anything at all, it is only about trying to
make hypotheses fit observations, until they no longer fit and aother
hypothesis has to be generated. Therefore it can never be judged to be
saying anything at all about how things really are, be it the nature of
Deep Space or whether there is something that happens or doesn't happen in
controlled experiments that doesn't happen or happens when things aren't
actually being tested. It is simply an incorrect model to be changed and
updated when necessary. There is no such thing as something being "true",
except in the mind of a scientist who needs to have a belief in such
concepts.


Gareth..









It must be very frustrating for them to be confronted by
scientists demanding that they explain themselves in terms that may well
be
unexplainable at the present. However, they do know how things are for
them. Which is about all any of us can really know anyway.


Except, that's NOT true, otherwise technology wouldn't work, including
the technology that allowed you to post this message. It isn't true
that everything people believe is true, is equally likely to be true.
Science is a method for testing models about the real world, to see
if they are accurate. It's worked rather spectacularly well so far.
It wouldn't work at all if all that was true, is what you *believe*
is true.

How anyone can believe that anything can be shown to be "true" is beyond
me.


Apparently.


All that can really be shown, surely, is that an obsevation does not seem
to
agree with the model, or hypothesis, that attempts to explain its
existance.


And do you imaigne that model came out of nowhere?

Which means only that the current model could do with a little refining
if
we want it to agree with such observations.


Indeed. But the observation that two things are *perceived* to
sound different in a sighted comparision, simply doesn't
require revision of current models to explain --
it is in fact *predicted* to be likely, from those current models.

So why don't you all just get over it and agree to disagree, you are
never
going to win this argument.


Well, it would help if people like you actually understood the rationale
for the 'objectivist' skepticism.




--

-S